swot-analysis.md

May 3, 2026 · View on GitHub

💼 Political SWOT Analysis Template

📊 Evidence-Based Strategic Analysis with TOWS Matrix & Scenario Generation
🎯 Government Coalition · Opposition · Cross-SWOT Interference · Strategic Options

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 2.5 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-04-25 (UTC)
🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public

📌 Template Instructions: Copy to analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/. Save as swot-analysis.md in the workflow's own folder (never overwrite another workflow's files). Each SWOT entry requires a dok_id or named evidence source — opinion-only entries are prohibited. See methodologies/political-swot-framework.md.

🚨 Anti-Pattern Warning: Plain prose SWOT analysis with bullet points but NO evidence tables, NO Mermaid diagrams, NO TOWS matrix, and NO cross-SWOT interference analysis is REJECTED. Every SWOT analysis MUST include:

SWOT Context table (metadata header with SWOT ID, date, scope, MCP sources)

Structured evidence tables with columns: #, Statement, Evidence (dok_id), Confidence, Impact, Entry Date

Color-coded Mermaid SWOT Quadrant Mapping with style directives

TOWS Strategic Options — at least 2 strategic options derived from SWOT combinations

Cross-SWOT Interference — how elements from different actors amplify each other

Strategic Implications section with Key Watch Items and forward indicators

Document Control footer

Good example: SWOT.md — this is the formatting quality standard.

📐 Template Contract — every fill of this template MUST satisfy this row.

Slot Value
Owning methodology per-artifact-methodologies.md
Owning gate check Check 1 + Check 4 (evidence) + Check 5 (Mermaid) — see 05-analysis-gate.md
Required inputs search_anforanden, get_voteringar, sibling Family A
Horizon band per-run (per scripts/horizon-context.ts)
Output family Family A — Core Synthesis
Aggregation order 10 of 30 in canonical order (see scripts/render-lib/aggregator/order.ts)
Reader Intelligence Guide row generated from swot-analysis.md (see scripts/render-lib/aggregator/reader-guide.ts)
Canonical evidence anchor | claim | evidence (dok_id / vote / MP intressent_id / primary-source URL) | retrieved_at | confidence | — every analytical claim row uses this schema.

Cross-reference: README.md §Template ↔ Methodology ↔ Gate-Check Matrix.

Slot	Value
Owning methodology	`per-artifact-methodologies.md`
Owning gate check	Check 1 + Check 4 (evidence) + Check 5 (Mermaid) — see `05-analysis-gate.md`
Required inputs	`search_anforanden`, `get_voteringar`, sibling Family A
Horizon band	per-run (per `scripts/horizon-context.ts`)
Output family	Family A — Core Synthesis
Aggregation order	10 of 30 in canonical order (see `scripts/render-lib/aggregator/order.ts`)
Reader Intelligence Guide	row generated from `swot-analysis.md` (see `scripts/render-lib/aggregator/reader-guide.ts`)
Canonical evidence anchor	`\| claim \| evidence (dok_id / vote / MP intressent_id / primary-source URL) \| retrieved_at \| confidence \|` — every analytical claim row uses this schema.

🔄 Tradecraft Context

Element	Value
F3EAD Stage	EXPLOIT / ANALYZE — converts classified events into the strategic picture (what each actor can leverage, defend, exploit, mitigate); feeds executive-brief, scenario-analysis, and Family D coalition-mathematics.
PIRs Served	PIR-1 (coalition stability), PIR-2 (opposition cohesion), PIR-4 (Election 2026 pathway); add PIR-3 (party-position drift) when SWOT entries record a shift relative to the 30-day baseline.
Admiralty Floor	B2 floor on every quadrant entry; A1 required when an entry quotes a verbatim primary source (motion text, vote tally, ministerial statement); F6 entries are rejected.
WEP + ODNI	Each entry carries a 5-level confidence label (🟦 VERY HIGH → ⬛ VERY LOW); narrative interpretation uses WEP phrasing for forward implications; TOWS strategic options pair likelihood × actor-capability assessments using WEP terms.
Source Diversity Floor	≥2 primary sources per HIGH-confidence quadrant entry; ≥1 primary for MEDIUM; LOW entries may be single-source but must carry `[needs-corroboration]`. Cross-SWOT interference rows must cite both contributing entries.
SAT(s) Applied	SWOT (canonical); TOWS Matrix (SO/ST/WO/WT options); Cross-Impact Analysis (interference between actor SWOTs); Key Assumptions Check (on every TOWS option); ACH (when ≥2 strategic interpretations compete).
ICD 203 Standards	1 (objectivity — every actor SWOT receives equal analytical depth), 5 (sourcing), 6 (logical argumentation — TOWS derivation shown), 7 (uncertainty — confidence labels), 9 (alternative analysis — cross-SWOT and TOWS surface counter-narratives).

See osint-tradecraft-standards.md for canonical Admiralty / WEP / SAT / ICD 203 definitions, and political-swot-framework.md for evidence-based SWOT, TOWS, cross-SWOT interference, and the 180-day temporal-decay rule.

📋 SWOT Context

Field	Value
SWOT ID	`[REQUIRED: SWT-YYYY-MM-DD-NNN]`
Analysis Date	`[REQUIRED: YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM UTC]`
Analysis Scope	`[REQUIRED: e.g. "Government coalition", "SD", "Climate policy domain"]`
Reference Period	`[REQUIRED: e.g. "2026-Q1" or "2026-W13"]`
Produced By	`[REQUIRED: workflow name or analyst]`
Primary MCP Sources	`[REQUIRED: list of riksdag-regering-mcp tools used]`
Validity Window	`[REQUIRED: entries valid until YYYY-MM-DD — see temporal decay guide]`
Temporal Window	`[REQUIRED: e.g. "2026-03-25 to 2026-04-01" — exact date range of documents covered by this SWOT; distinct from Validity Window which tracks entry expiry]`

🏛️ Section 1: Government Coalition SWOT

Analyse the governing coalition as a unit. Individual party SWOTs in Section 2.

✅ Strengths — Government Coalition

Each entry requires: Statement + Evidence (dok_id) + Confidence + Impact + Entry Date (for temporal decay tracking).

#	Strength Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
S1	`[REQUIRED: specific, verifiable strength — e.g. "Coalition maintains working Riksdag majority of 176 seats through SD support agreement"]`	`[REQUIRED: dok_id or vote record]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
S2	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
S3	`[OPTIONAL]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
S4	`[OPTIONAL]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

Coalition Strength Summary: [REQUIRED: 1–2 sentences]

⚠️ Weaknesses — Government Coalition

#	Weakness Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
W1	`[REQUIRED: e.g. "Internal disagreement on migration targets between M and L weakens policy coherence"]`	`[REQUIRED: dok_id or debate reference]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
W2	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
W3	`[OPTIONAL]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

Coalition Weakness Summary: [REQUIRED: 1–2 sentences]

🚀 Opportunities — Government Coalition

#	Opportunity Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
O1	`[REQUIRED: e.g. "Improving macroeconomic indicators provide window for tax reform legislation"]`	`[REQUIRED: SCB data or budget dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
O2	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
O3	`[OPTIONAL]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

Coalition Opportunity Summary: [REQUIRED: 1–2 sentences]

🔴 Threats — Government Coalition

#	Threat Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
T1	`[REQUIRED: e.g. "No-confidence motion risk if SD withdraws budget support over crime legislation stall"]`	`[REQUIRED: interpellation or debate ref]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
T2	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
T3	`[OPTIONAL]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

Coalition Threat Summary: [REQUIRED: 1–2 sentences]

🏛️ Section 2: Main Opposition SWOT

Focus on the largest opposition bloc or party. Specify which.

Opposition Subject: [REQUIRED: e.g. "Social Democrats (S) + V + MP bloc"]

✅ Strengths — Opposition

#	Strength Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
S1	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
S2	`[OPTIONAL]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

⚠️ Weaknesses — Opposition

#	Weakness Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
W1	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
W2	`[OPTIONAL]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

🚀 Opportunities — Opposition

#	Opportunity Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
O1	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

🔴 Threats — Opposition

#	Threat Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
T1	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

🏛️ Section 3: Policy Domain SWOT

Policy Domain: [REQUIRED: select from classification taxonomy — e.g. "Climate & Environment (ENV)"]

✅ Strengths in Domain

#	Strength Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
S1	`[REQUIRED: e.g. "Sweden meets 2025 renewable energy target; supporting legislation fully enacted (prop 2024/25:XX)"]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`
S2	`[OPTIONAL]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

⚠️ Weaknesses in Domain

#	Weakness Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
W1	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

🚀 Opportunities in Domain

#	Opportunity Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
O1	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

🔴 Threats to Domain

#	Threat Statement	Evidence (dok_id)	Confidence	Impact	Entry Date
T1	`[REQUIRED]`	`[dok_id]`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`VH/H/M/L/VL`	`YYYY-MM-DD`

📊 SWOT Quadrant Mapping

Visual SWOT Impact Diagram

AI Instructions: Replace placeholder text below with actual SWOT findings from the tables above. Each node label should reference the corresponding S/W/O/T entry number.

%%{init: {
  "theme": "neutral",
  "themeVariables": {
    "quadrant1Fill": "#2E7D32",
    "quadrant2Fill": "#D32F2F",
    "quadrant3Fill": "#1565C0",
    "quadrant4Fill": "#FF9800",
    "quadrantTitleFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantPointFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantPointTextFill": "#000000",
    "quadrantXAxisTextFill": "#000000",
    "quadrantYAxisTextFill": "#000000"
  },
  "quadrantChart": {
    "chartWidth": 700,
    "chartHeight": 700,
    "pointLabelFontSize": 12,
    "titleFontSize": 20,
    "quadrantLabelFontSize": 16,
    "xAxisLabelFontSize": 14,
    "yAxisLabelFontSize": 14
  }
}}%%
quadrantChart
    title 🎯 POLITICAL SWOT QUADRANT MAPPING
    x-axis Internal Factors --> External Factors
    y-axis Threats --> Opportunities
    quadrant-1 STRENGTHS
    quadrant-2 WEAKNESSES
    quadrant-3 OPPORTUNITIES
    quadrant-4 THREATS
    "💪 S1: [Coalition majority]": [0.20, 0.85]
    "💪 S2: [Policy delivery]": [0.30, 0.75]
    "⚡ W1: [Internal disagreements]": [0.25, 0.20]
    "⚡ W2: [Policy coherence gap]": [0.20, 0.30]
    "🌟 O1: [Economic tailwinds]": [0.80, 0.85]
    "🌟 O2: [EU alignment]": [0.75, 0.70]
    "☁️ T1: [No-confidence risk]": [0.85, 0.20]
    "☁️ T2: [Electoral pressure]": [0.75, 0.30]

Note: The four quadrant fill colours follow the ISMS Style Guide SWOT palette — Strengths #2E7D32 (green), Weaknesses #D32F2F (red), Opportunities #1565C0 (blue), Threats #FF9800 (orange). Place each S/W/O/T entry as [x, y] where x ≈ 0.15–0.35 for internal factors and 0.65–0.90 for external factors; y ≈ 0.65–0.90 for opportunities/strengths (positive) and 0.10–0.35 for weaknesses/threats (negative). Cross-SWOT interactions are captured in the Section 5: Cross-SWOT Interference Analysis table below.

SWOT Interaction Matrix

	Internal (Actor / Organisation)	External (Environment / System)
Positive impact	Strengths — internal advantages	Opportunities — external enablers
Negative impact	Weaknesses — internal limitations	Threats — external risks

For each item (S/W/O/T), briefly note why it is internal/external and negative/positive, and reference supporting evidence (for example dok_id) in the tables above.

[REQUIRED: 3–5 sentences summarising the most critical SWOT interactions — e.g. how a coalition weakness intersects with an opposition opportunity to create a specific political risk over the next 30–60 days. Be specific and evidence-based.]

Key Watch Items:

[REQUIRED: specific event or indicator to monitor]
[REQUIRED]
[OPTIONAL]

🔄 Section 5: Cross-SWOT Interference Analysis

How do SWOT elements from different actors (government, opposition, SD) amplify or counteract each other?

Gov/Opp SWOT Element	Interfering Element	Effect	Net Political Impact
`[e.g. Gov W1: Coalition tension]`	`[e.g. Opp S1: United front]`	Amplifies vulnerability	`[REQUIRED: Specific implication]`
`[e.g. Gov S1: Legislative majority]`	`[e.g. SD W1: Policy delivery failure]`	Fragile dependency	`[REQUIRED: Specific implication]`
`[REQUIRED: At least 2 interference pairs]`	`[...]`	`[...]`	`[...]$

📊 \text{Section} 6: \text{TOWS} \text{Strategic} \text{Options}

\text{Convert} \text{SWOT} \text{findings} \text{into} \text{strategic} \text{options} — \text{answering} "\text{So} \text{what}?"

\text{TOWS} \text{Cell}	\text{Strategy}	\text{Specific} \text{Action}	\text{Evidence}
\text{SO} (\text{Strength} \times \text{Opportunity})	$[REQUIRED: How to use a strength to exploit an opportunity]`	`[Specific action with timeline]`	`[dok_id]`
WO (Weakness × Opportunity)	`[REQUIRED: How to use an opportunity to address a weakness]`	`[Specific action]`	`[dok_id]`
ST (Strength × Threat)	`[OPTIONAL: How to use a strength to counter a threat]`	`[Specific action]`	`[dok_id]`
WT (Weakness × Threat)	`[OPTIONAL: How to minimise vulnerability]`	`[Specific action]`	`[dok_id]`

🔮 Section 7: Forward Indicators & Scenario Outlook

30-Day Scenario Outlook:

Scenario	Probability	Key Trigger	SWOT Elements Driving It
`[REQUIRED: Most likely scenario]`	`[%]`	`[Specific trigger event]`	`[S1+O2, T1+W1, etc.]`
`[REQUIRED: Alternative scenario]`	`[%]`	`[Specific trigger event]`	`[SWOT elements]`
`[OPTIONAL: Worst case]`	`[%]`	`[Trigger]`	`[SWOT elements]`

📂 MCP Data Files Used

Record all MCP tool calls and data files consulted during this SWOT analysis for reproducibility and audit traceability.

[REQUIRED: List all analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/data/ files consulted]

#	Data Source	File / Tool Path	Data Type	Retrieved
1	`[e.g. riksdag-regering-mcp]`	`[e.g. search_voteringar(rm="2025/26")]`	`[e.g. Voting records]`	`[YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM UTC]`
2	`[e.g. riksdag-regering-mcp]`	`[e.g. search_dokument(doktyp="mot", rm="2025/26")]`	`[e.g. Motions]`	`[YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM UTC]`
3	`[e.g. CIA export]`	`[e.g. cia-data/exports/party-analysis.json]`	`[e.g. Party metrics]`	`[YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM UTC]`
4	`[OPTIONAL]`	`[path or tool call]`	`[type]`	`[timestamp]`

SWOT Quadrant Data Provenance

AI Instructions: Map which MCP data sources provided evidence for each SWOT quadrant. This ensures every SWOT entry has traceable data backing, in line with the evidence hierarchy requirements from political-swot-framework.md.

SWOT Quadrant	Primary MCP Tools	Evidence Items	Confidence
Strengths	`[e.g. search_voteringar, get_betankanden]`	`[#]`	`[VH/H/M/L/VL]`
Weaknesses	`[e.g. search_anforanden, search_dokument]`	`[#]`	`[VH/H/M/L/VL]`
Opportunities	`[e.g. search_regering, get_calendar_events]`	`[#]`	`[VH/H/M/L/VL]`
Threats	`[e.g. search_voteringar, search_dokument_fulltext]`	`[#]`	`[VH/H/M/L/VL]`

📌 Note: Confidence follows the temporal decay rule from political-swot-framework.md: HIGH (0–30d, remains HIGH at 30d)→MEDIUM (90d)→LOW (180d)→EXPIRED. All files listed MUST exist at the stated paths; mark transient data as (transient — not cached).

🔄 Section 8: SWOT Delta — Changes Since Previous Analysis

AI Instructions: Compare current SWOT entries with the most recent previous SWOT analysis for the same article type. Categorise each entry as New, Changed, Removed, or Unchanged. If no previous analysis exists, mark all as "New — first analysis."

Previous SWOT Reference: [REQUIRED: path to previous swot-analysis.md or "N/A — first analysis"]

New Entries (not in previous analysis)

Quadrant	Entry ID	Statement	Evidence for Emergence
`[S/W/O/T]`	`[e.g. S3]`	`[New strength/weakness/opportunity/threat]`	`[What triggered this new entry?]`
`[S/W/O/T]`	`[e.g. T3]`	`[OPTIONAL]`	`[trigger]`

Changed Entries (present in both, but score/confidence shifted)

Quadrant	Entry ID	Previous Assessment	Current Assessment	Change Reason
`[S/W/O/T]`	`[e.g. W1]`	`[Previous: Confidence M, Impact M]`	`[Current: Confidence H, Impact H]`	`[What changed?]`

Removed Entries (in previous analysis but no longer applicable)

Quadrant	Entry ID	Previous Statement	Reason for Removal
`[S/W/O/T]`	`[e.g. O2]`	`[Former opportunity]`	`[Why no longer applicable]`

SWOT Delta Summary: [REQUIRED: 1–2 sentences — e.g. "2 new threats emerged from SD budget rhetoric; 1 weakness resolved after committee agreement. Net: threat landscape worsened."]

🗳️ Section 9: Election 2026 SWOT Dimension

How do the SWOT findings translate into electoral positioning for September 2026?

Dimension	Assessment	Evidence
Electoral Impact	`[REQUIRED: How do these SWOT findings affect September 2026 election positioning?]`	`[Specific evidence]`
Coalition Scenarios	`[REQUIRED: Which coalition configurations benefit/suffer from the current SWOT balance?]`	`[Evidence]`
Voter Salience	`[REQUIRED: Which voter segments are most affected by these SWOT dynamics?]`	`[Evidence]`
Campaign Vulnerability	`[REQUIRED: Which SWOT weaknesses/threats create campaign attack vectors?]`	`[Evidence]`
Policy Legacy	`[REQUIRED: Which SWOT strengths/opportunities will become electoral assets?]`	`[Evidence]`

Overall Electoral Significance: [REQUIRED: CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW/NEGLIGIBLE]

Most Likely Electoral Narrative: [REQUIRED: How will these SWOT findings be framed in the 2026 campaign?]

Electoral SWOT Balance

Quadrant	Electoral Asset/Liability	Impact on 2026 Campaign
✅ Strengths	`[REQUIRED: Which strengths are electoral assets?]`	`[Positive/negative framing potential]`
⚠️ Weaknesses	`[REQUIRED: Which weaknesses are electoral liabilities?]`	`[Attack vector potential]`
🚀 Opportunities	`[REQUIRED: Which opportunities can be turned into campaign wins?]`	`[Timing relative to Sept 2026]`
🔴 Threats	`[REQUIRED: Which threats could damage electoral standing?]`	`[Risk level for 2026 campaign]`

🎯 Confidence Scale Reference (5-Level)

Level	Label	Criteria	Evidence Threshold
⬛ 1	VERY LOW	Speculation only, single unverified source	0–1 sources, no corroboration
🟥 2	LOW	Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators	2 sources, indirect evidence
🟧 3	MEDIUM	Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration	3+ sources, moderate agreement
🟩 4	HIGH	Official records, documented data, direct evidence	Official docs, voting records, committee reports
🟦 5	VERY HIGH	Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus	Multiple official sources, cross-validated

🔗 Cross-References

Link to sibling analysis files and same-day analysis from other article types for contextual completeness.

Related Analysis File	Relationship	Key Finding
`[REQUIRED: e.g. risk-assessment.md]`	`[SWOT threats feed into risk register]`	`[1 sentence]`
`[REQUIRED: e.g. threat-analysis.md]`	`[SWOT threats aligned with threat taxonomy]`	`[1 sentence]`
`[REQUIRED: e.g. synthesis-summary.md]`	`[aggregated SWOT consumed by synthesis]`	`[1 sentence]`
`[OPTIONAL: same-day analysis from different article type]`	`[cross-reference]`	`[1 sentence]`

✅ Quality Self-Check Checklist

Pre-commit validation — every item MUST be checked before finalising this analysis.

Document Control:

Template Path: /analysis/templates/swot-analysis.md
Framework Reference: SWOT.md, methodologies/political-swot-framework.md
Version: 2.4
Effective Date: 2026-04-25 (UTC)
Key Changes v2.3: Added Election 2026 SWOT Dimension section (Section 9), Electoral SWOT Balance table, 5-level confidence scale reference, updated quality checklist
Advanced Sections: Cross-SWOT Interference, TOWS Matrix, SWOT Delta, Forward Indicators & Scenario Outlook, MCP Data Provenance
ISMS Alignment: ISO 27001:2022 A.5.7 (Threat Intelligence), NIST CSF 2.0 ID.RA (Risk Assessment)
Classification: Public
Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807)
Next Review: 2026-06-30

✅ Pass-2 Self-Audit Checklist (v4.4 — required)

Purpose: AI-FIRST principle requires a Pass-2 read-back-and-improve. After producing this artifact in Pass 1, re-read it end-to-end and verify each item below. Document any remediation in methodology-reflection.md §"Pass-2 audit log". Any unchecked ❌ box at the end of Pass 2 forces a Pass-3 rewrite of the affected section.